It’S Not Censorship; It’S About Protection

Talk about disenfranchised voters! You don’t have to travel to Florida to find them. Why, we’ve got trouble right here in River City.

That is precisely the way some folks in Post Falls feel after the River City’s elected officials - namely Mayor Gus Johnson and his City Council - turned a deaf ear to their protests regarding the circulation of R-rated videos to minors at the Post Falls Public Library.

Mayor Johnson made it clear that he didn’t want to hear any more about this topic but needed to move on to “more important” issues at the Nov. 21 City Council meeting. Moreover, he washed his hands of all responsibility for the matter by reading an obscure and ambiguously worded section from Idaho state code to punctuate his distaste for the controversy.

Evidently, the mayor had previously advised Pat Kilpatrick, main spokesman for the group of protesters at the November meeting, that he should take his complaint directly to the Post Falls Library board. Kilpatrick reported that he had dutifully followed up on this advice, but his concerns had been ignored at the last three board sessions.

In fact, at the last meeting of the library board, several other people also voiced their objections to children under l7 being allowed access to R-rated videos. Among those who spoke were a young father of two boys, a grandfather, a teacher, and a retired librarian.

Each was sternly admonished to keep comments brief, and when strongly worded protests were made, speakers were rudely interrupted and challenged.

After these citizens had spoken, library board chairman Michelle Veale concluded that she “really hadn’t received any complaints” about the library’s current collection of 26 R-rated videos. With total disregard for the protests that had just been offered, Veale and the other four library board members, including Catholic priest Father William Gould of St. George’s, adopted a video policy which already had been written out but had not previously been made available for public perusal.

The policy states that “the library will not attempt to solely prohibit the circulation of R-rated videos,” and furthermore, that “parents who feel they need the additional aid of the library in preventing their children from accessing videos may do so by requesting such action in writing to the library board. This would result in a total denial of video privileges.”

It is obvious that the situation here is not one in which library board members haven’t received any complaints about their video policy. Rather it is one in which they are not listening to any comments that don’t agree with their philosophy, and neither is the mayor who appointed the board members.

However, Kilpatrick and others who agree with him have not given up. They feel the library policy undermines community standards and that the clause threatening loss of all video privileges is an unjust, vindictive punishment.

Indeed, this video policy does seem ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as a situation in which one maverick store in town might decide to put out copies of Playboy where children could access and buy the magazines and then turn around and refuse to sell them anything at all if their parents complain.

Video stores shield children from renting R-rated materials. Why won’t a public library offer that same protection? Instead, it hides behind statements like: “It’s not our job; it’s the parent’s job to monitor what videos their children watch.”

The federal government is demanding that Hollywood stop targeting minors with entertainment of a violent, sexual or profane nature. But the public library demands the right to circulate it to them? This just doesn’t make sense.

Library board members need to discover the difference between censorship and protecting children from age-inappropriate materials. They should realize that their primary mission is to preserve knowledge, not to provide entertainment. They must also be more open-minded and give thoughtful consideration to public opinion instead of punishing patrons who have viewpoints that differ from their own.

Both the library board and the City Council format their meetings to allow “citizen comment.” However, both organs of government have demonstrated arrogance when it comes to valuing valid concerns about community standards. Something needs to change.